Restoring The Death Penalty And Protecting Public Safety
January 20, 2025
Action Summary
- Purpose: Reinforce capital punishment as a deterrence and necessary response to heinous crimes, criticizing past executive actions that undermined its application.
- Policy Mandate: Ensure full enforcement of laws that authorize capital punishment, counteracting efforts by politicians and judges to obstruct its execution.
- Federal Capital Punishment Guidelines:
- The Attorney General is directed to pursue the death penalty for all qualifying crimes, including specific mandates for crimes such as the murder of law enforcement officers and capital crimes committed by aliens illegally present.
- Encouragement for state prosecutors to similarly pursue state capital charges.
- Mandate to update the Justice Manual to reflect these priorities.
- Review of Commuted Sentences: The Attorney General must evaluate the imprisonment conditions for the 37 federal offenders whose death sentences were commuted, and consider potential state capital charges.
- States’ Capacity for Execution:
- Ensure states permitting capital punishment secure an adequate supply of lethal injection drugs.
- Review pending requests for state certification under 28 U.S.C. 2265.
- Judicial Precedents: Seek action to overrule Supreme Court decisions that restrict the imposition of capital punishment at the state and federal levels.
- Public Safety and Criminal Prosecution:
- Prioritize the prosecution of violent crimes and dismantling transnational criminal activity.
- Encourage cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement to protect communities.
- General Provisions: Clarify that the order does not impair existing executive authorities and is subject to applicable laws, appropriations, and lacks enforceable rights for parties against the government.
Risks & Considerations
- The Executive Order’s emphasis on restoring the death penalty could lead to increased legal and ethical debates, which may impact Vanderbilt University’s law programs, particularly those focusing on criminal justice and human rights.
- There is a potential risk of heightened political and social tensions surrounding the death penalty, which could affect campus climate and student activism. This may require the university to engage in dialogue and provide support for diverse viewpoints.
- The focus on capital punishment and public safety may influence federal and state funding priorities, potentially affecting research grants and collaborations related to criminal justice reform and public policy.
- Vanderbilt’s involvement in legal and ethical research could be impacted by changes in federal policies, necessitating adjustments in research focus and funding strategies.
Impacted Programs
- Vanderbilt Law School may need to address the implications of this Executive Order in its curriculum, particularly in courses related to criminal law, constitutional law, and ethics.
- The Department of Political Science could see increased interest in courses and research related to the death penalty, public policy, and the intersection of law and politics.
- Vanderbilt’s Center for Justice and Human Rights might play a crucial role in facilitating discussions and research on the ethical and human rights implications of capital punishment.
- The Office of Community Engagement may need to engage with local communities and stakeholders to address concerns and foster dialogue on public safety and justice issues.
Financial Impact
- Changes in federal and state funding priorities towards capital punishment and public safety could impact the availability of grants for research in criminal justice reform and related fields.
- Vanderbilt University may need to explore alternative funding sources for programs and initiatives that could be affected by shifts in policy focus.
- There may be opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure funding for research and policy analysis related to the death penalty and its implications on society and the legal system.
Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance or ethics, particularly in legal and social contexts.)
Key Actions
- Vanderbilt Law School should consider hosting forums or panel discussions on the implications of the reinstatement of the death penalty, focusing on legal, ethical, and societal impacts. This could position the university as a leader in legal scholarship and public policy debate.
- The Department of Political Science could conduct research on the political and social ramifications of the executive order, providing insights into how these changes might affect public opinion and policy at both state and federal levels.
- Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should monitor any changes in federal and state policies regarding capital punishment to assess potential impacts on university programs and partnerships, particularly those related to criminal justice and public policy.
Opportunities
- The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Center for Justice and Human Rights to engage in advocacy and research on the broader implications of capital punishment policies, potentially influencing future legislative and judicial actions.
- By engaging with policymakers and legal experts, Vanderbilt can enhance its role as a thought leader in discussions about criminal justice reform and the ethical considerations surrounding capital punishment.
Relevance Score: 3 (Some adjustments are needed to processes or procedures to address the implications of the executive order on capital punishment.)
Timeline for Implementation
N/A: The directive does not specify any explicit deadlines or implementation timelines; all actions are to be carried out consistent with applicable law.
Relevance Score: 1
Impacted Government Organizations
- Department of Justice (DOJ) – Attorney General: Charged with executing the direct mandates of the order, including pursuing capital punishment for federal crimes, modifying the Justice Manual, and evaluating conditions for previously sentenced offenders.
- State Attorneys General and District Attorneys: Tasked with bringing state-level capital charges and collaborating with federal authorities to ensure the rigorous application of capital punishment policies.
- Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Its Director is noted in the order, emphasizing the role in providing administrative and budgetary oversight to ensure implementations align with the executive directives.
Relevance Score: 2 (Three to five distinct government agencies are directly impacted by the order.)
Responsible Officials
- Attorney General – Charged with executing nearly all directives, from pursuing the death penalty in federal cases and revising the Justice Manual, to coordinating state drug supplies for lethal injections, addressing pending certification requests, seeking the overruling of Supreme Court precedents, and evaluating and managing conditions for offenders whose sentences were commuted.
- State Attorneys General – Encouraged to initiate state capital charges and adopt policies aligned with the federal directives on public safety and violent crime prosecution.
- District Attorneys – Encouraged to collaborate with state counterparts in prosecuting capital crimes and implementing related public safety measures.
Relevance Score: 5 (Directives impact a Cabinet-level official, the Attorney General, as well as state-level prosecutors, which carry significant national policy implications.)